×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

James Cameron Commissions Submarine To Visit Challenger Deep

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the ed-harris-can-probably-help-you-out dept.

Transportation 285

frank249 writes "In January, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Trieste descent, the X Prize Foundation announced a $10 million prize for the first privately funded craft to make two manned descents to the bottom of Challenger Deep, the deepest surveyed point in the oceans. Now, James Cameron has announced he has commissioned a submarine capable of surviving the tremendous pressures at a depth of seven miles, from which he will not only try for the X prize but also shoot 3D footage that may be incorporated in Avatar's sequel."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

285 comments

Sequel? (4, Insightful)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 3 years ago | (#33614936)

Oh no.

Re:Sequel? (2, Insightful)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#33614990)

Don't worry. The descent is a risky venture. There's a very good chance the submarine will fail at depth, costing Cameron his life and the world the opportunity to see a sequel.

Not that I personally wish Cameron any harm, of course.

Ideally, the submarine will fail at a very survivable depth on the way down (or on the way back up, but in such a way that the footage is destroyed), he'll resurface unharmed, and he'll take that as a sign from [insert_deity_or_external_force_here] that Avatar, like Terminator and Alien and The Matrix, is a movie that should never, ever, ever have a sequel.

Re:Sequel? (4, Insightful)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615114)

...that Avatar, like Terminator and Alien and The Matrix, is a movie that should never, ever, ever have a sequel.

Terminator *2* was the good one. People remember Arnold fighting the T1000, not some soft human.
And you can edit the Matrix Reloaded down to about 50 minutes of entertainment.

Re:Sequel? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33615416)

T3 was good, for approximately all of 5 minutes, the chase sequence that Arnold himself partially funded ($2 million? IIRC). Coincidentally, this is also the only part of the movie where John Connor (Nick Stahl) stays silent.

T2 was better, but only in large part because of Linda Hamilton.

Re:Sequel? (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615688)

Nah, I've got to disagree with you there. IMHO, I'd much rather watch a lower-budget movie with a really good plot (Terminator) than a weak plot with high-budget special effects (T2). Don't get me wrong; the original had it's flaws* but it's by far my favorite.

If you had said Aliens2 rather than T2, I'd have to agree with you.

*The dialog was often a little forced, and I would have like Linda Hamilton to have been a bit stronger of a character -- although not quite the caricature she became in T2.

Re:Sequel? (3, Insightful)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615208)

The first Alien movie was good, but the second one, Aliens, although completely different in tone, was better. There were no other sequels. Period. That is all.

Re:Sequel? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615218)

You do realize that they can do quite a bit of testing on the surface, right? For the amount of money involved here, it would surprise me if they didn't have some means of testing it prior to launch without endangering anybody's life.

Re:Sequel? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33615240)

How the hell do you come up with Alien and Terminator when trying to list movies that shouldn't have sequels? The list of good examples is endless, and you manage to pick on two of the best Sci Fi sequels of all time. Yea, after the 2nd, they all sucked, but Aliens and Terminator 2 are undeniable classics.

Re:Sequel? (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615682)

How the hell do you come up with Alien and Terminator when trying to list movies that shouldn't have sequels? The list of good examples is endless, and you manage to pick on two of the best Sci Fi sequels of all time. Yea, after the 2nd, they all sucked, but Aliens and Terminator 2 are undeniable classics.

Umm. That's the point. Aliens and Terminator 2 were both directed by Cameron. The later sequels were not (and sucked).

Re:Sequel? (2, Interesting)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615440)

Terminator had a sequel, and a good one. Not sure why you think that Avatar shouldn't have one. There is potential there, much as there was in Star Wars after "A New Hope". And so far, Cameron seems to be able to actually tell a decent story, completely unlike Lucas.

So I'm actually looking forward to an Avatar sequel.

Now if we're talking Highlander....

Re:Sequel? (2, Funny)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#33614994)

Don't worry, it'll give you sci-fi snobs another movie to look down your nose at. Of course, while you're standing in line to watch it for the 3rd time, buying the Blu-Ray disk, updating your home theater system to get the most out of the experience, and looking for places on the internet to tell other snobs how much you hated it.

Re:Sequel? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33615102)

Can the decent-story-and-dialog snobs join in? We so love to have company.

Re:Sequel? (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615162)

Lemme guess... You liked Transformers 2? Oh, those wacky robots!

Re:Sequel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33615512)

I didn't see Transformers 2, but could it have been that much worse than the first? It was awful.

Space Smurf Pocahantas (0, Flamebait)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615166)

Sorry, buddy, but I have not seen James Cameraschlock's Space Smurf Pocahantas and I never will. There are plenty of us who actually, really and truly do not like crap Science Fiction, will not see it, will not buy the Blue-Ray and won't mention it until some idiot tries to defend it or imply that, actually, I really really like it but I'm too much of a snob to admit it.

Re:Space Smurf Pocahantas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33615228)

nerd

Re:Space Smurf Pocahantas (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615398)

nerd

Why, thank you. And they said the Internet had killed civility and manners.

Re:Space Smurf Pocahantas (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615394)

Well, you should, it was pretty amazing, especially in 3d.

Whether it counts as "sci-fi" is of course another question, but then again, who cares?

Re:Space Smurf Pocahantas (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615540)

I lost my left eye in a mugging. 3d does nothing for me, so that's no plus. And I already got dragged to see Dances with Wolves, do I really need to see the remake just because it has awesome graphics and special effects? I don't go to movies for awesome graphics and special effects. I understand that many people do enjoy pretty pictures, but when I want pretty pictures I go to an art gallery.

I'm honestly not trying to be a condescending snob and claim my tastes are more refined than other people's. And I'm certainly not saying that people who appreciate anything James Cameron has ever done are infantile subhumans who probably consider smearing their feces on a wall high art. And James Cameron is a wealthy and popular director of major motion pictures, far be it from me to call the man the worst director since Ed Wood. But I don't want to feel left out when everyone is sharing their opinions about a popular phenomenon, and I don't want to lie.

Re:Space Smurf Pocahantas (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615666)

When I want pretty pictures I go a cliff side and view the petroglyphs and then I blow it up so no one else can appreciate it like I did. Out snob that. I'm not trying to be a snob, I just don't want to be left out of all the snobbery.

Re:Space Smurf Pocahantas (4, Insightful)

Corbets (169101) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615462)

Sorry, buddy, but I have not seen James Cameraschlock's Space Smurf Pocahantas and I never will. There are plenty of us who actually, really and truly do not like crap Science Fiction, will not see it, will not buy the Blue-Ray and won't mention it until some idiot tries to defend it or imply that, actually, I really really like it but I'm too much of a snob to admit it.

Um, not to disagree or anything, but how do you know it's crap if you haven't bothered to watch it?

Re:Space Smurf Pocahantas (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615672)

I read reviews, what do you think? Unless the reviewers I read suddenly started lying through their teeth, it's the most puerile tripe I've ever read about. Why would I watch shit like that? I mean, was this the first James Cameron film you've been too? Did you not know what a crap director he is? You were never forced to see Titanic by a girlfriend?

Re:Space Smurf Pocahantas (1)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615484)

Sounds like a kid who doesn't want to eat anything other than his tried and true mac-n-cheese.

Re:Space Smurf Pocahantas (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615520)

There are other foods? ... besides mac and cheese and grilled cheese sandwiches?

Oh, and I'm no little kid! Don't make me get my dad to beat you up.

Re:Space Smurf Pocahantas (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615638)

Wrong, sounds like a kid who won't eat mac and cheese, but rather, wants a nicoise salad, a fillet mignon, and some truffle stuffed lobster. Except that I actually like mac and cheese, too, I just don't call it haute cuisine or the best food ever cooked by anyone, anywhere, for ever and ever amen. I mean, some people actually cried over how awesome the movie was, how pathetic is that?

Re:Space Smurf Pocahantas (0, Offtopic)

dswensen (252552) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615494)

Moderation's really on the job when "I didn't see this movie but it sucks!" is modded insightful. And "Cameraschlock"? For God's sake.

Re:Space Smurf Pocahantas (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615616)

I don't need to see trash to know that it sucks, I can smell that shit. Please, are you really claiming anything Cameron has done is art? You know, I sometimes enjoy bad things, too. I occasionally eat at McDonalds, for instance. But I don't go around telling people it's a fucking fillet mignon.

a random troll on internet (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615532)

trashing the career of one of the most successful directors in hollywood

(rolls eyes)

frankly, your post is nothing more than jealousy. you stand on a soap box of imagined authority to pass judgment on the man based on nothing but empty spite

you're just sour grapes. maybe it makes you feel better about your own failure to trash successful people, but the idea of losers pulling down others to their level is a social phenomenon as old as loser teenagers being angry at their peers who try to better themselves

you're just pathetic

Re:a random troll on internet (-1, Flamebait)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615580)

I love quality and the excellent people who produce items of quality. I hate amateurish populists who mass produce schlock focus group tested to be palatable to idiots.

Speaking of which, how's your movie coming? Scary Philipino bodyless vampires! OOOhhh! Spoooooooky!

quality according to who? (0, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615656)

according to you? who the hell are you?

there is only one OBJECTIVE determinant of quality: box office business. everything else is subjective and therefore flawed

therefore, based on the only objective measure of quality we have available, james cameron is a quality film maker. this is an objective fact

money coming in=quality. you disagree with this definition? ok. show me another OBJECTIVE measure of quality and you will prove me wrong. can't do it. sorry

to imagine that you somehow speak for what quality film is, based on nothing but your own delusions of importance, is a commentary on your own psychological defects, and nothing more

pop wins. snobs lose. sorry

Re:quality according to who? (-1, Flamebait)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615720)

So, has anyone reviewed your movie yet? Is it popular? Yeah, thought not. Bitter much? I'm just saying, being a failed artist is probably why you hate critics. Successful and talented artists welcome criticism, because they want to be better artists. People like you, on the other hand, just want the kind of blind adoration you will never, ever get.

Re:Space Smurf Pocahantas (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615548)

I am glad to hear that you do not care to watch the movie. I myself have watched it and enjoyed it immensely, but always, at the back of my mind, there was a nagging thought: "What does uid 1352 think about the movie?" I have been wondering about it for many a month with no answer in sight. Now, thankfully, my mind can rest. Not only do you not care to see the movie at all, but you are kind enough to share your thoughts about the movie, although you have not seen it, with all of us at Slashdot.
Actually, in retrospect, I should have seen it coming. If reading TFA or even the summery is too much to ask from someone before he starts commenting about a headline, surely it is too much to ask from someone (esp. with such a short uid) to see a 3h movie before commenting on its merits (or lack of).

Re:Space Smurf Pocahantas (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615708)

I don't have to see it. All the reviews I read, from reviewer's whose opinion's I trust, said it was a crappy film. As if "Directed by James Cameron" wasn't enough of a clue. Seriously, are you actually denying it is Pocahantas in space? Cameron makes focus group tested, mass produced schlock designed for the "mass market," i.e. your average idiot with no taste.

I'm glad you liked it though.

Re:Sequel? (1)

AltairDusk (1757788) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615370)

You don't have to be a snob to realize that without the (very technically impressive) 3d and CG work it would be a pretty lackluster film.

Re:Sequel? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615396)

You do, however, have to be a snob to believe people watch it for the story, and not the CG work.

Re:Sequel? (1)

mibe (1778804) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615400)

Well yeah, that's why I thought the film was impressive. It didn't have the whole package (plot), but it was super fun to watch, and well worth my money - and it's hard to say that about many films these days (or any days, I don't know).

Re:Sequel? (2, Insightful)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615594)

I thought it was a good movie with a story told very well. The 3D added a lot, but I believe it would have been a good movie even without it. Since the hype was over the 3D, it tended to make people disregard the rest of the movie. Yes, the plot is not original, but you can say that about 95% of (Hollywood) movies today. Cameron took a storyline (Pocahontas) and used it as a basis for a futuristic action movie.

Re:Sequel? (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615346)

It's my understanding that a sequel was planned before the first was even released. Whether it would be produced was dependent on the success of Avatar. And I have to admit I'm looking forward to it. As goofy and simplistic as the plot was I found Avatar to be very entertaining, and normally it's quite difficult for me to get past a weak plot.

Re:Sequel? (4, Interesting)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615602)

I found the IMAX "experience" entertaining, while at the same time thinking that if I watched this movie from my couch in 2D and 720p, I would have turned the dreck off halfway through.

Re:Sequel? (3, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615410)

Did I say sequel to Avatar? I meant it was a sequel to "Titanic." It's a tragic love story between two deep-sea invertebrates living on the hull of the titanic.

Re:Sequel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33615728)

My first thought as well. Why bother with a sequel? The art left unexpressed or just $$$ ? The latter me thinks...

Sooo (2, Funny)

locallyunscene (1000523) | more than 3 years ago | (#33614942)

Smurfs underwater?

*Ducks*

Re:Sooo (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615110)

Thing is, from the trailers the forthcoming Smurfs movie looks much, much worse than Avatar.

Re:Sooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33615170)

the Snorks?

'Dances with Thundercats' gets a sequel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33614952)

Will it actually have a story this time?

Re:'Dances with Thundercats' gets a sequel? (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615018)

Doesn't the fact that you called it "Dances with Thundercats" imply that it has a story, and that the story is similar to Dances with Wolves?

I thought it sucked too, but just sayin...

Re:'Dances with Thundercats' gets a sequel? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615144)

Doesn't the fact that you called it "Dances with Thundercats" imply that it has a story, and that the story is similar to Dances with Wolves?

I thought it sucked too, but just sayin...

Uhhhh, the movie, or the dance? </Troy McClure>

An Aquaman movie, I knew it! (1)

Late Adopter (1492849) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615012)

But if James Cameron is on board, Adrian Grenier [wikipedia.org] better be too.

Re:An Aquaman movie, I knew it! (1)

Haffner (1349071) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615052)

Didn't you see the part about it being a sequel? Adrian Grenier doesn't do sequels for less than $20 million.

Re:An Aquaman movie, I knew it! (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615242)

Which is probably just an excuse to not do sequels. Not that I can blame him, sequels are typically really bad for a person's career. $20m will take the sting off of just about anything.

*shudder* (4, Funny)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615024)

Titanatar 2

"God Himself could not sink this tree!"

Re:*shudder* (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615174)

I was pondering the same thing... What part of Avatar was under water? Can those crazy blue alien people now ride 7-mile-deep diving creatures of some sort, for what is presumably a spiritual journey of self-accomplishment and occasional calamity?

Re:*shudder* (2, Insightful)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615280)

It seems anything that is different than our own culture is ultimately spiritually fulfilling and perfection.

Re:*shudder* (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615624)

Maybe the selfishness and corporatism of the Human race, which will one day spawn some interstellar Godwin's Law, somehow caused the blue kittens' world to be flooded.

What are you supposed to shoot down there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33615040)

When you're seven miles deep, isn't it, y'know, dark? Maybe you could bring some insanely powerful halogens to illuminate a foot or two, but have you ever taken a photo of someone with the flash held too close to their face? Not something I'm dying to see in IMAX. Stupid idea all around.

Re:What are you supposed to shoot down there? (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615138)

No, you bring some properly-powered lights to illuminate the area around you so you can film it, like you do any dark place. Very much like, y'know, filming at night.

Seven miles of depth doesn't impart some magical light-blocking properties to water. It's just dark. So you bring lights. Cameron's a filmmaker, I think he's got the whole "proper illumination" thing figured out.

PS: We've already got photos and video from Challenger Deep, the X-Prize is to send a MANNED mission there.

Re:What are you supposed to shoot down there? (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615338)

PS: We've already got photos and video from Challenger Deep, the X-Prize is to send a MANNED mission there.

Are you questioning the manhood of Captain Piccard?

Sad, actually (3, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615062)

To clarify: I find it a bit sad that humanity just isn't capable of building on pre-existing accomplishments, solutions and ideas. The Trieste [wikipedia.org] has already achieved this goal 50 years ago, as the summary states, so why would this be such a difficult challenge? We had the technology half a century ago, and it worked perfectly well.

Sort of like the Apollo program - almost half a century after, we are not capable to go to the moon - we simply and stupidly "forgot" how to do it. The great designers and engineers left and/or died off, and we, as humankind, went on with out collective dicks in our collective hands.

Re:Sad, actually (1)

Loomismeister (1589505) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615202)

What makes you think that we are not capable of going to the moon? It would be relatively simple to achieve at this point, as we have not forgotten anything.

Re:Sad, actually (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615206)

The reason nobody's done those things again is that with advances in robotic technology, the only reason to send people to either the moon or the Challenger Deep is for a photo op. Both have already been done, and "me too" snapshots just aren't nearly as compelling.

Re:Sad, actually (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615274)

The reason nobody's done those things again is that with advances in robotic technology, the only reason to send people to either the moon or the Challenger Deep is for a photo op. Both have already been done, and "me too" snapshots just aren't nearly as compelling.

And how are we going to colonize other planets, such as Mars, if we don't colonize the Moon, first? How are we going to build a permanent base on Mars if we don't do it on the Moon, first?

The Moon itself may or may not be scientifically interesting, but it's a great staging and study ground for subsequent missions. If we don't know how to get our asses to the Moon, sure as hell we won't be able to get them to other planets or asteroids.

And robotic missions? Really? How is that 40 minutes signal roundtrip to Mars working out? A robotic probe on Mars will do in 10 years about as much work as one man or woman would do in one day. In the long run, robotic probes are way too expensive vs. the job they manage to do.

Re:Sad, actually (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615578)

And how are we going to colonize other planets, such as Mars, if we don't colonize the Moon, first?

We don't. There is absolutely no reason to colonize Mars. The planet has nothing of value on it beyond science info, which can be collected with machines.

Maybe it's worth sending humans on an Apollo-style mission to plant a flag, snap photos, and pick up bragging rights, but that's about it.

A robotic probe on Mars will do in 10 years about as much work as one man or woman would do in one day

That's BS. First of all, people would be spending 99% of their time and effort trying to keep their own meatbag asses alive. Moreover, probes, (or better still, entire robotic science bases), can patiently do their work while scientists on earth take time to analyze results. Then armed with these results, they can direct the robots to do followups without the scheduling pressure of running out of life support and return launch windows.

Re:Sad, actually (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615640)

Not to mention we're busy wasting trillions of dollars on nebulous domestic spending programs to visit a rock that doesn't have the juice it did back in the day.

Re:Sad, actually (5, Insightful)

TheUnFounded (731123) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615230)

On the other hand, it got them there, but didn't do a whole lot of good. From Wikipedia:

"The descent took almost five hours and the two men spent barely twenty minutes on the ocean floor before undertaking the three-hour-and-fifteen-minute ascent. Their early departure from the ocean floor was due to their concern over a crack in the window caused by the intense pressure of their descent, and also because their landing on the sea bed had stirred up a cloud of silt which reduced visibility to zero and showed no sign of settling." So hopefully the new technology will give us a longer, more interesting time at the bottom...

Re:Sad, actually (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615306)

We didn't forget how to go to the moon, we stopped investing the resources in maintaining the capability. The moon was a great accomplishment in terms of jump starting the space program, but there wasn't really a whole lot of quality science coming out of it. Not like today, the science being done in orbit is much, much better than what we were doing back then.

We could get back to the moon pretty quickly if we wanted to, it's mostly a matter of do we really want to spend the resources to do it? We also have higher expectations of safety now than we did back then.

Re:Sad, actually (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615652)

I think if you went back there today, all those Atari 2600 Pac-Man cartridges would hold the silt down.

Re:Sad, actually (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615490)

Actually the Trieste was not very maneuverable. Hopefully this new sub will actually maneuver and poke around a bit. The Trieste to put in space terms was Viking or maybe Apollo 11.
This new on will be Spirt or Apollo 17 if you like

And the US could go to the moon again if we had the will. Russia could also probably do it. The EU could but it would take them a bit longer since there experience with Man rated craft is limited.
China or India could do it in between 10 and 15 years.

Re:Sad, actually (3, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615664)

To clarify: I find it a bit sad that humanity just isn't capable of building on pre-existing accomplishments, solutions and ideas. The Trieste [wikipedia.org] has already achieved this goal 50 years ago, as the summary states, so why would this be such a difficult challenge? We had the technology half a century ago, and it worked perfectly well.

Sure. And take aeronautics. Clearly we should have stopped in the 1800s with functional gliders. Or maybe the early 1900s with powered flight. I mean... surely the Wright Brothers should have just put away their wind tunnels and called it a day before doing all this testing. By the mid-1900's it was just getting silly. The 1940's saw jet engines - as if that wasn't just coat-tail riding in it's fullest. And as if this hasn't all Been Done by world Governments, private commercial aviation has to get in to the mix. What the heck were these guys thinking?

Sort of like the Apollo program - almost half a century after, we are not capable to go to the moon - we simply and stupidly "forgot" how to do it. The great designers and engineers left and/or died off, and we, as humankind, went on with out collective dicks in our collective hands.

Yeah - I'm sure it's all about lost knowledge and nothing about the resources it took to accomplish these things. It's not like going to the moon is involved or anything. On a more serious note - you should go download yourself a copy of the CAIB Report and look in to the chapter that talks about funding; specifically comparing the Apollo era to today.

Sequel (2, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615108)

also shoot 3D footage that may be incorporated in Avatar's sequel.

I think that it would be better to film for a sequel to Das Boot. We could watch the nervous faces of the crew look around as the metal hull of the submarine makes sickening groans under the increasing pressure. Every so often, a pipe would spring a leak and a burly guy in a tank top would have to tighten it with a huge monkey wrench. Then more guys would have to use sledge hammers jam wooden timbers into bulging bulkheads. Finally there would be life-and-death drama when the ballast fails to release at the bottom of the trench. That would make for a riveting thriller.

Re:Sequel (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615326)

Not really necessary, we can already do that via special effects. Putting somebody's life in jeopardy like this is just plain silly.

Re:Sequel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33615528)

Bullshit. People put their own lives in jeopardy for much less interesting reasons. A quick trip to Youtube will help you fill in the blanks. At least we might have better images than some dummy with a cell phone cam who drops it at the crux point and interrupts the sound with incoherent shouting. Then the three successively slower replays of the same crap footage. If Cameron is going to film someone putting their lives on the line, it'll be from multiple viewpoints, with high res cameras and hot damn there will be good sound.

April Fools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33615140)

"also shoot 3D footage that may be incorporated in Avatar's sequel."

The April fools jokes are getting earlier and earlier each year, come on!

clever tax deduction (2, Interesting)

SethJohnson (112166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615234)

Oh, this guy just wants to have an adventure and take the cost of it out of his taxes. I doubt he'll get any usable footage, but the expedition will qualify nonetheless.

Seth

Re:clever tax deduction (3, Informative)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615692)

Interesting point. Though he did use footage of the Titanic in the movie Titanic where he did much the same thing.

as a scientist (2, Interesting)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615284)

i have to say, yeah, this is a spectacular piece of news for cameron and a great promo for his next film. "i want to shoot for the stars" is a great thrill, but the fact of the matter is, a submarine capable of withstanding 8TPI of seawater pressure is not the same as say, commissioning a rolls royce with a custom paint job. That is, just because you say it needs to happen, and you might throw "lots" of money at it, does not mean it will even get off the drawing board. The Soviet military once built a submarine called Komsomolets capable of a 1000 meter dive, but thats still roughly 8000 meters short of the target depth our television director wants.

cameron was a physics major (5, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615496)

meaning: the guy is not a hollywood idiot

i mean shape memory alloy turned into a villain in t2? or superconducting islands of rock in the air? the man is a true science geek in the vein of anyone else writing here on slashdot

so if anyone is going to get this thing built, with the money cameron has, he's going to do it, because he most certainly understands all of the objections you raised in your post. he is also diving fanatic, he got cameras to the titanic site, his technical and science acumen is outstanding

a science geek and an extremely successful movie director. frankly, cameron makes me completely jealous

Re:cameron was a physics major (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33615722)

Well, thanks for pointing out the #1 reason one of my buddies and I have a long-running dispute over T1 vs. T2. I think T2 is the better movie, because I watch it as an action movie -- and it's seriously a damn good action movie.

But my buddy can't help seeing them as scifi (apparently like you) and because he has a brain (apparently unlike you) he can't get past the liquid-metal hyperalloy T1000 as an SF construct -- he points out that even granting the mechanical properties (liquefy/rigidize at will with no evident actuators, controllable surface appearance, etc.), there's still no mechanism for a computer, power source, etc. made out of "hyperalloy" and capable of continuous deformation. Your point of "Cameron is a science geek, he's one of *us*!!!" doesn't make any sense, because any one of "us" (meaning real science and engineering nerds) would have taken the shape-memory inspired liquid metal concept and rolled it into something quasi-feasible, such as covering an endoskeletal structure (housing the computer/power/etc. components) with it, AKA the only thing T3 got right.

Cameron's not a science geek, he's a science fanboy. He wants to play with cool SF ideas, but he can't or won't apply the necessary rigor to apply them sanely, and at the end of the day it's the same sort of "SF" as most of ST:TOS; the "science" becomes meaningless technobabble thrown in to motivate the plot, or in Cameron's case, the action & effects.

Re:as a scientist (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615544)

Well, the Trieste did it, so there's at least one workable design already. And Steve Fossett had already commissioned a submarine that was designed, built and ready to begin sea trials. It was designed using kevlar and carbon fiber, rather than the five inch thick steel sphere of the Trieste, but I would think that we know enough about those materials that the designer had a high degree of confidence that the design could take the pressure (plus a solid safety margin) before bothering to build it.

Yes, this is an engineering challenge, but one that has already been solved once, and probably twice. I have little doubt that the submarine will be built and will function as designed.

Re:as a scientist (1)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615552)

Good thing he's not hiring the Soviet Military. Some Swedish economics professor [wikipedia.org] built a submarine that went to a depth of 10,000 feet. He later designed one that already accomplished this feat in 1960. So the design is not a problem. The X-prize isn't about getting it done, it's about getting private funding to do it twice. James Cameron should have plenty of money to accomplish this.

James Cameron, the one man Dethklok (2, Interesting)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615312)

"We're gonna re-re-re-re-remake Avatar right there (pointing at globe). No, not in the ocean, inside the ocean, in the heaviest, deepest, most brutal part - the MARIANA TREEEEENNCH! We're gonna call the sequal Avatar 2: BLOOOOD OCEAN!"

.

Sequel not to Avatar but to The Abyss? (3, Interesting)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615390)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096754/ [imdb.com] is the kind of movie requiring some real submarine footage. The other one's Smurfahontas in CGI (quite an accomplishment nonetheless - that should be spared the sad sequel fate of Highlander) - so why would anyone risk their life (and/or sub) for what they could so convincingly render in 3D anyway?

Re:Sequel not to Avatar but to The Abyss? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33615628)

so why would anyone risk their life (and/or sub) for what they could so convincingly render in 3D anyway?

Because it's there. James Cameron's about as close as we've got to a high profile explorer these days...

Re^2: Sequel not to Avatar but to The Abyss? (1)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615694)

so why would anyone risk their life (and/or sub) for what they could so convincingly render in 3D anyway?

Because it's there. James Cameron's about as close as we've got to a high profile explorer these days...

Wasn't what made the magic of Avatar that it isn't there, nor actually anywhere?

Vegas? (1)

nickdwaters (1452675) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615596)

Is it safe to assume James Cameron and the crew will be placed on the infamous dead pool? I'll put $1000 bucks on it.

the abyss, titanic... (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615598)

ghosts of the abyss, aliens of the deep... now avatar ii

frankly, james cameron is a deep sea diving enthusiast who made the mistake of having a career as a successful movie maker

its almost like he chooses his movies just so he can play with deep sea diving equipment. and the whole "making massive amounts of money with extremely successful pop movies" is an afterthought to his real passion in life. bizarre

Call me dumb... (1)

theorem4 (1101729) | more than 3 years ago | (#33615660)

But as soon as you reach any depth considered the Challenger Deep, it would already be pitch black, right? Would they use infrared? And they plan on doing 3D? Maybe they will just use regular light. If nothing else they will see new creatures.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...